The negative predictive value of electrical impedance scanning in BI-RADS category IV breast lesions

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 478-485

  Fuchsjaeger, Michael H ^a   Flöry, Daniel ^a   Reiner, Cäcilia S ^a   Rudas, Margarete ^a   Riedl, Christopher C ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Breast; Breast cancer; Electrical impedance scanning; Mammography; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER PREDICTION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMPEDANCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 20844440052     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000167425.34577.d1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2004.
2. Hall FM, Storella JM, Silverstone DZ, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendation for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology. 1988;167:353-358.
3. Ciatto S, Cataliotti L, Distante V. Nonpalpable breast lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1987; 165:99-102.
4. Morrow M, Schmidt R, Cregger B, et al. Preoperative evaluation of abnormal mammographic findings to avoid unnecessary breast biopsies. Arch Surg. 1994;129:1091-1096.
5. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, et al. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211:845-850.
6. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR. 1998;171:35-40.
7. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089-1096.
8. Sickles EA. Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:693-700.
9. Xydeas T, Siegmann K, Sinkus R, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography of the breast: correlation of signal intensity data with visoelastic properties. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:412-420.
10. 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer pre- and postgadolinium administration. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:405-411.
11. Floery D, Helbich TH, Riedl CC, et al. Characterization of benign and malignant breast lesions with computed tomography laser mammography (CTLM): initial experience. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:328-335.
12. Müller-Schimpfle M, Stern W, Stoll P, et al. Mammography and mammary ultrasonography: which examination sequence is preferable? Fortschr Röntgenstr. 1997;167:348-354.
13. Fricke H, Morse S. The electric capacity of tumors in the breast. J Cancer Res. 1926;16:340-376.
14. Jossinet J. Variability of impeditivity in normal and pathological breast tissue. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1996;34:346-350.
15. Surowiec AJ, Stuchly SS, Barr JR, et al. Dielectric properties of breast carcinoma and the surrounding tissues. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1988; 35:257-263.
16. Jossinet J. The impeditivity of freshly excised human breast tissue. Physiol Meas. 1998;19:61-75.
17. Malich A, Boehm T, Facius M, et al. Differentiation of mammographically suspicious lesions: evaluation of breast ultrasound, MRI mammography and electrical impedance scanning as adjunctive technologies in breast cancer detection. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:278-283.
18. Malich A, Böhm T, Facius M, et al. Additional value of electrical impedance scanning: experience of 240 histologically-proven breast lesions. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:2324-2330.
19. Wersebe A, Siegmann K, Krainick U, et al. Diagnostic potential of targeted electrical impedance scanning in classifying suspicious breast lesions. Invest Radiol. 2002;37:65-72.
20. Fuchsjäger MH, Helbich TH, Ringl H, et al. Electrical impedance scanning in the differentiation of suspicious breast lesions: comparison with mammography, ultrasound and histopathology. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2002;174:1522-1529.
21. Glickman YA, Filo O, Nachaliel U, et al. Novel EIS postprocessing algorithm for breast cancer diagnosis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002; 21:710-712.
22. Helbich TH, Matzek W, Fuchsjäger MH. Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:383-393.
23. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid Breast Nodules: Use of Sonography to Distinguish between Benign and Malignant Lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123-134.
24. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, et al. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:921-927.
25. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, et al. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology. 1999;213:413-422.
26. Fless JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley 1981;126-133.
27. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology. 1988;168:661-663.
28. Sickles EA, Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology. 1994;192:439-442.
29. Malich A, Facius M, Anderson R, et al. Influence of size and depth on accuracy of electrical impedance scanning. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2441-2446.
30. Donegan WL. Stage and receptor status in breast cancer. Cancer (Suppl). 1992;70:1755-1764.
31. Kato T, Kameoka S, Kimura T, et al. Angiogenesis and blood vessel invasion as prognostic indicators for node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treatment. 2001;65:203-215.
32. Malich A, Fuchsjager M. Electrical impedance scanning in classifying suspicious breast lesions. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:302-304.
33. Scholz B, Anderson R. On electrical impedance scanning-principles and simulations. Electromedica. 2000;68:35-44.
34. Perlet C, Kessler M, Lenington S, et al. Electrical impedance measurement of the breast: effect of hormonal changes associated with the menstrual cycle. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:1550-1554.